DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 August 2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is hereby considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Abstract, line 1, “It is an object of the present invention to provide” should be changed to --A-- (note: the language of the Abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc - see MPEP 608.01(b)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 4, “a” (before “green”) should be changed to --the-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice - see line 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a screen golf module” (claims 1 and 5), “a virtual golf simulation device” (claims 1 and 5), “a controller” (claim 2), “a screen shutter driver” (claim 2), “sensing device” (claim 5).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 5, the limitation recited as “processing the actual golf play on the actual field” renders the claim indefinite since “processing” implies some manipulation/transformation of “actual golf play”, and whereas “actual golf play” is an activity that is performed in reality. Insofar as “processing” is intended to imply that “actual golf play” is tracked in some manner, then it is noted that the disclosure is silent as to such tracking. In light of S160 on Figure 5, to overcome this rejection the Office suggests changing “processing” to --proceeding with--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-20020092266; cited in an IDS; see attached translation) in view of Kwak (KR 10-1337826; cited in an IDS; see attached translation).
In reference to claim 1
Kim discloses:
A hybrid golf system comprising:
a screen golf module (i.e., golf simulator 200) provided on one side of an actual field (120) where a user can play golf and including a virtual golf simulation device (i.e., the assembly of computer processing unit 260 and projector 280) that allows the user to play golf on a virtual golf course; and
a screen shutter (290)(note: any opening/closing capability implied by shutter is addressed by the below modification(s)) provided in the screen golf module to project an image (i.e., the screen 290 projects an image by reflection of the image produced by projector 280 - see par. [0053]) of the virtual golf course and the virtual golf simulation.
Kim does not disclose:
the screen shutter configured to open and close a wall of the screen golf module facing the actual field, whereby the virtual golf course is converted into the actual field according to the opening of the screen shutter.
Kwak discloses:
a golf simulator apparatus for a driving range, the golf simulator apparatus comprising a screen shutter (100) for displaying a golf simulation image, wherein the screen can be deployed/retracted such that, in the deployed position, the screen shutter forms a wall of the golf simulator apparatus thereby allowing virtual play (see e.g. Abstract), and, in the retracted position, access to an outdoor section of the golf driving range is established thereby allowing actual/field play (see e.g. Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to include configuring the screen shutter to be movable between a retracted position and a deployed position, as disclosed by Kwak, for the purpose of allowing easy access to the actual field while also providing a transition from the virtual field to the actual field that is enjoyable and immersive to the golfers.
Kim in view of Kwak therefore addresses:
the screen shutter configured to open and close a wall (i.e., the wall that is formed by the Kim screen 290 being in the deployed configuration)(note: Applicant’s disclosure at e.g. par. 65 indicates that screen shutter 300 is the wall) of the screen golf module facing the actual field, whereby the virtual golf course is converted (as in Kwak) into the actual field according to the opening of the screen shutter.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kwak and Lee (KR 10-20190012317; see attached copy with translation).
In reference to claim 2
Kim in view of Kwak addresses:
The system according to claim 1, further comprising: a screen shutter driver (i.e., lifting means 200 - Kwak) configured to drive opening and closing (“lifting means 200 for raising and lowering the golf screen” - Kwak page 2 of the attached translation) of the screen shutter; and
a controller (i.e., computer processing unit 260 - Kim) configured to allow the user to perform a part of golf play in a hole through the virtual golf course in the screen golf module as a virtual golf play.
Kim in view Kwak does not address:
the controller configured to allow the user to perform the rest of the golf play in the hole on the actual field as an actual golf play, wherein the controller controls the screen shutter driver to close the screen shutter during the virtual golf play and to open the screen shutter during the actual golf play to connect to the actual field from the inside of the screen golf module.
Lee discloses:
a sports simulation device comprising a controller (90) and a screen (10) that can be retracted and deployed, wherein the controller controls the actions of the sports simulation (i.e., “when the user selects the sprin golf, the control unit displays a golf initial screen while logging in the golf program, and measures the distance traveled by the golfer hitting the ball and the direction of the ball, The screen golf is performed while a camera for shooting a scene when hitting the golf ball and displaying the screen on the screen 10 is operated” - see page 15 of attached copy) and controls retraction/deployment of the screen based on an operating mode of the sports simulation device (i.e., “when the screen baseball is selected through the control unit, the first screen 10 is wound up by the winch 12 by the control of the control unit 90” - see page 15 of attached copy).
Kim further discloses (see e.g. Step S160 on page 5 of the attached translation) that the golf simulation device notifies the golfers when the location of the virtual ball in the virtual field corresponds with a location in the actual field, thereby establishing/registering a status change between virtual golf play and actual golf play.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim in view of Kwak to include configuring the controller to retract/deploy the screen shutter in dependence on the operating mode of the system, as disclosed by Lee, for the purpose of promoting leisure/enjoyment of the golfers by providing a seamless and automated experience. In performing such a modification, it would have been further obvious to define the operating modes as virtual golf play and actual golf play since the disclosure of Kim provides a means for combining these types of play.
In reference to claim 3
Kim in view of Kwak and Lee, as combined in the rejection of claim 2, addresses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the actual field (Kim - 120) is formed to include a green (124 - Kim) and a hole-cup (125 - Kim) for the user to perform an approach shot and a putting, and in the process of playing golf through the virtual golf course (Kim) in the screen golf module (Kim - 200), when the virtual ball is settled within a predetermined range around a green on the virtual golf course (note: the distinction between virtual golf play and actual golf play is made on the basis of the location of the ball, as in Kim, and it is noted that there exists a range around a green in Kim that is within the actual field), the screen shutter (Kim - 290) is opened and converted into golf play in the actual field (note: the modification over Lee results in the screen shutter being retracted/deployed in dependence on the game status being virtual golf play or actual golf play).
In reference to claim 4
Kim in view of Kwak and Lee, as combined in the rejection of claim 2, addresses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the actual field (Kim - 120) is formed to include a green (124 - Kim) and a hole-cup (125 - Kim) for the user to perform an approach shot and a putting, and in the process of playing golf through the virtual golf course (Kim) in the screen golf module (Kim - 200), when the virtual ball is settled on a green on the virtual golf course (note: the distinction between virtual golf play and actual golf play is made on the basis of the location of the ball, as in Kim, and it is noted that the green in Kim is within the actual field), the screen shutter (Kim - 290) is opened and converted into golf play in the actual field (note: the modification over Lee results in the screen shutter being retracted/deployed in dependence on the game status being virtual golf play or actual golf play).
In reference to claim 5 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Kim in view of Kwak and Lee, as combined in the rejection of claim 2, addresses:
A control method for a hybrid golf system using an actual field (Kim - 120) provided for a user to play golf and a screen golf module (Kim - 200) provided on one side of the actual field to play golf on a virtual golf course, the control method comprising:
processing a virtual golf play in the screen golf module by projecting an image of the virtual golf course on a screen shutter (Kim - 290) provided on a wall (i.e., the wall that is formed by the Kim screen 290 being in the deployed configuration)(note: Applicant’s disclosure at e.g. par. 65 indicates that screen shutter 300 is the wall) of the screen golf module facing the actual field, and when hitting a ball toward the screen shutter, sensing by a sensing device (240 - Kim) the hit ball and simulating an image of a virtual ball moving on the virtual golf course (see e.g. Kim par. [0053]);
converting from the virtual golf play to an actual golf play on the actual field by opening the screen shutter according (due to the modification over Lee) to a result of the simulation of the virtual ball in the virtual golf course during the virtual golf play; and
processing (i.e., providing ball location information to allow placing the ball on the actual field - see Kim par. [0057]) the actual golf play on the actual field.
In reference to claim 6
Kim in view of Kwak and Lee addresses:
The control method according to claim 5, wherein the converting from the virtual golf play to an actual golf play on the actual field (Kim - 120) includes opening (note: the modification over Lee results in the screen shutter being retracted/deployed in dependence on the game status being virtual golf play or actual golf play) the screen shutter (Kim - 290) when the virtual ball is settled within a predetermined range around a green (124 - Kim) or settled on the green (note: the distinction between virtual golf play and actual golf play is made on the basis of the location of the ball, as in Kim, and it is noted that a region around the green and/or the green in Kim is within the actual field) on the virtual golf course in the process of the virtual golf play in the screen golf module (Kim - 200).
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
All cited references disclose a system with combined virtual golf play and actual golf play.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711